Just so we are clear you are not referring to net neutrality with that statement, are you? Because if you are then I want you to know that you don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has been around as long as the internet. It was definitely not created in 2013. As the internet is right now there is total freedom to visit whatever website you want as much as you want. Using however much bandwidth you are paying for. Well guess what you are being short sighted and selfish in your thinking just like the government. Guess what Dal? There are a lot of cities that DON'T have choices in ISP's. Some only have one choice and that is all you get. Meaning hey we see you are using a lot of bandwidth from Netflix we are going to have to raise you bill by 10 dollars because of it. So without net neutrality they can double dip you for money. Just because of what website you use.
Let me try this slowly. The net is not neutral now. There are a host of technologies being used to accelerate certain content - load balancing, replication, the whole concept of network management is about not being "neutral". The problem here is that if a new method of network management is developed, it isn't allowed short of the government revising rules. All of these non-neutral things happened because the companies had an incentive (called your business) to deliver content faster. Your point about "only one" is why the government should be focused on opening the markets not opening the networks. Frankly, what is wrong with a tiered pricing model? Say the ISP's do drive netflix and others to a "premium" plan? Why are people like my dad who reads emails and visits ESPN.com subsidizing people like me who consume egregious amounts of bandwidth watching Netflix basically nightly? The world is filled with differential pricing for different service levels. Cable companies do it. Restaurants do it (it is called an appetizer), airlines do it and so forth. This isn't about "freedom" it is about regulation. This ruling is about allowing the FCC to manage content delivery. As I said, they are regulating the specific forms of network management you can do which borders on insane to have the government determining how technology works. Imagine what the web would look like if they had decided in 1998 the "right" way to manage a network. At an even higher level, the government is regulating content delivery. You really want the government to have the authority to manage how content is delivered? What the government gives, it can take away. Once the FCC establishes control over content delivery how long before the MPAA decides to lobby to remove bittorrent because the FCC has that power and 99% of what happens on bittorrent is illegal anyway. How about when BHO's minions are gone and the R's are back and decide pron is bad for you?
Just so we are clear you are not referring to net neutrality with that statement, are you? Because if you are then I want you to know that you don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has been around as long as the internet. It was definitely not created in 2013. As the internet is right now there is total freedom to visit whatever website you want as much as you want. Using however much bandwidth you are paying for. Well guess what you are being short sighted and selfish in your thinking just like the government. Guess what Dal? There are a lot of cities that DON'T have choices in ISP's. Some only have one choice and that is all you get. Meaning hey we see you are using a lot of bandwidth from Netflix we are going to have to raise you bill by 10 dollars because of it. So without net neutrality they can double dip you for money. Just because of what website you use.
Let me try this slowly. The net is not neutral now. There are a host of technologies being used to accelerate certain content - load balancing, replication, the whole concept of network management is about not being "neutral". The problem here is that if a new method of network management is developed, it isn't allowed short of the government revising rules. All of these non-neutral things happened because the companies had an incentive (called your business) to deliver content faster. Your point about "only one" is why the government should be focused on opening the markets not opening the networks. Frankly, what is wrong with a tiered pricing model? Say the ISP's do drive netflix and others to a "premium" plan? Why are people like my dad who reads emails and visits ESPN.com subsidizing people like me who consume egregious amounts of bandwidth watching Netflix basically nightly? The world is filled with differential pricing for different service levels. Cable companies do it. Restaurants do it (it is called an appetizer), airlines do it and so forth. This isn't about "freedom" it is about regulation. This ruling is about allowing the FCC to manage content delivery. As I said, they are regulating the specific forms of network management you can do which borders on insane to have the government determining how technology works. Imagine what the web would look like if they had decided in 1998 the "right" way to manage a network. At an even higher level, the government is regulating content delivery. You really want the government to have the authority to manage how content is delivered? What the government gives, it can take away. Once the FCC establishes control over content delivery how long before the MPAA decides to lobby to remove bittorrent because the FCC has that power and 99% of what happens on bittorrent is illegal anyway. How about when BHO's minions are gone and the R's are back and decide pron is bad for you?
You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Seriously watch the damn video and read the article so you understand. Jesus christ you have everything backwards and you're embarrassing yourself.
You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Wow, the funny and sad thing is you think you know something - and I love the I'll side with Google stance as if they are uninterested parties. Your understanding of neutrality is shallow as all get out. Again, the ruling you want to defend lists specific NON NEUTRAL aspects of the internet. Your understanding of computers doesn't include network management I provided the link, which you can't be bothered to read the actual law. There is actually nothing in this ruling about net neutrality per se which is even worse. The courts did not uphold or strike down the "right" to a neutral internet. Again, you don't bother with with understand what was actually being challenged here The ruling is about the ability of the FCC to regulate transmission of the data. The "net neutrality" as you see it is nothing more than the current set of rules the FCC was proposing to force on providers Assuming this power was granted there would be nothing to stop them from changing that stance to say that there is another set of rules because, well we have the power to regulate.
You are so uninformed it is laughable. Seriously you sound like you have everything confused and twisted. I'll take Google and my knowledge with computers and networks over yours. You partially quoted me which means I was right. You don't know, but you're trying hard to pretend you do. LMFAO you have everything backwards... RIGHT NOW and since the internet has been around it HAS BEEN NEUTRAL. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE KILLING. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Wow, the funny and sad thing is you think you know something - and I love the I'll side with Google stance as if they are uninterested parties. Your understanding of neutrality is shallow as all get out. Again, the ruling you want to defend lists specific NON NEUTRAL aspects of the internet. Your understanding of computers doesn't include network management I provided the link, which you can't be bothered to read the actual law. There is actually nothing in this ruling about net neutrality per se which is even worse. The courts did not uphold or strike down the "right" to a neutral internet. Again, you don't bother with with understand what was actually being challenged here The ruling is about the ability of the FCC to regulate transmission of the data. The "net neutrality" as you see it is nothing more than the current set of rules the FCC was proposing to force on providers Assuming this power was granted there would be nothing to stop them from changing that stance to say that there is another set of rules because, well we have the power to regulate.
So you know more than everyone in the news and everyone on YouTube and everyone in Huffington Post? You should be a billionaire.Net neutrality - (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.I don't know what's so hard for you to understand.